Adam Savage, Phil Plait, and Veronica Belmont Talk Science

6 thoughts on “Adam Savage, Phil Plait, and Veronica Belmont Talk Science”

1. Every time I hear Adam retell the Rick Santorum story and says he’s teaching his kids to think critically I think, “… well SOMEBODY has to!”

   Reply

2. Adam’s bit on public speaking as a scientist really struck a cord with me; On Thursday I’m giving a tutorial to some PhD students and researchers about some advanced programming concepts, and as an undergraduate computer science student I don’t exactly have a lot of experience addressing a crowd of more than a few people.

   P.S. This video alone makes my weekend at MetaCon seem boring (and I met Billy West!), I’ll have to make a road trip down to Dragon Con next year.

   Reply

3. “Hey
   um so as someone who’s studied evolutionary biology I have noticed that there
   seems to be some hostility to science a lot in the political realm and just in
   the public in general, in terms of evolution, in terms of climate science and
   things like that and definitely, you know, shows that popularize science are
   good for that, but do you guys see some other strategies for um helping people to
   understand the importance of science and uh you know actually realize that it’s
   a good and important part of our lives and not something to be feared or
   laughed at.” (22:40)

   An
   open letter to Adam Savage and other truth seekers.

   I
   am hoping that somehow Adam Savage can maybe get a chance to read this, after
   all Twittering this to him 140 characters at a time would be ponderously
   ridiculous I think all would agree. In the very least I am hopeful that this
   could start a dialogue, maybe clear some misconceptions, who knows.

   First
   a little about me. When I was a kid I was a hair’s-width away from having a
   literal hunger for learning. I actually got caught in class for doodling. What
   was I doodling? A picture of a Trilobite which happened to be two chapters
   ahead of what the rest of the class was on, so the teacher didn’t know what to
   do with me: I’m ahead in class but I was doodling. I remember at one point the
   teacher had asked the class if we wanted to go to the lavoratory. Now everyone,
   what’s that? Of course. Yet to a seven-year-old child I thought test-tubes, Bunsen
   burners, the twirly glass tubes. Oh I was so disappointed, the only chemicals
   were the urinal cakes.

   So
   I actually have an affinity for science. I work with computers, which makes me
   very logical-minded. I’m a closet geek, peeking out with a toe out the door,
   here’s to that then. I hope that what I want to talk with you can be discussed
   between two (or with the audience) science lovers.

   Let
   me ask, since you’re probably the closest thing to an expert in the Scientific
   Process than I am, how does this sound? Ask a question, research on that question
   to see what’s out there related to the question, plan out and execute tests and
   experiments to prove or disprove towards that answer, record the process and
   the results, and finally have others re-run and verify with peer review. Essentially.

   Here’s
   where my problem lies, and hence why I started with that quote. Up to that point I don’t recall any discussion
   about politics, maybe I’m wrong. There was talk about 52 mm, a “come-hither”
   pose, the moon’s luminescence, yet I don’t recall a hint of politics.

   Yet
   right out the gate someone comes with a political question. Was Dragon*Con a
   political event? Were there cosplayers of Hillary Clinton and Ann Coulter? The
   question itself, and I believe the tone of the response, was basically anyone
   who disagreed must therefore be “anti-science”, like Rick Santorum ha ha ha. “I
   have noticed that there seems to be some hostility to science a lot in the
   political realm and just in the public in general.” Oh there can’t be any
   actual reason why anyone has questions, must be hostility. Debate is hostility.
   And the “political realm”. This is where I feel her question falls apart. Science is not political.

   Since
   she mentions Climate Science let’s go with that first. Do I believe in Global
   Warming? Yes. I also believe in Global Cooling, it’s call “weather”. I do note
   a phenomenon, however I also note the changes in terminology to suit a specific
   purpose. That’s key. It was Global Cooling in the 70’s, the 80’s had Acid Rain,
   then El Nino and la nina, Global Warming, and now it’s “Climate Change”. Fifty
   years of “we’re all gonna die”, from the discredited “Population Bomb” book on
   up to “An Inconvenient Truth”. So my observation of the process has been
   instead: determine the result that’s desired, then work the tests backward. Any
   and all data that falls out of the pre-conceived “answer” is ignored, peer
   review is not applied.

   That’s
   the appearance that I and others are noting. Granted, it may not be true, I’ll
   readily concede that. However when you have emails from East Anglia showing
   they suppressed data that didn’t conform to their desire for that “hockey stick”
   projection, as well as hiding evidence, to me that doesn’t bode well. Instead
   of the rest of the scientific community rumbling in mass protest at their
   behavior, it’s defended and the falsified data re-used.

   Again,
   that’s the appearance. There may be something going on, but how can we trust
   the results when it does appear to be tainted from the start? What should have
   happened is a) every member of that team and anyone using the data should be
   denounced, no one should ever work in that field again, b) re-run the
   experiments from scratch if necessary, sure it may require ten times the work
   but it’s not the skeptics’ fault, it’s these bozos, make them pay it, c) you
   hold off the announcement of the results until the data is checked, re-checked,
   peer reviewed, and then triple checked again.

   Instead
   what we have is a Search-and-Destroy mission on anyone who, shudder, has a
   different opinion. So there are warming trends. I also see articles where the
   same temperature gradient is occurring on the other planets, maybe the Sun has
   something to do with it? No, that’s taken out of the equation. Instead we’re
   left with….fossil fuels. As you mentioned the 21 pound myth, someone got a set
   of data and ran with it, “the skies are falling”. And this is where you lose
   me.

   This
   is the problem I’m having, with her question specific but the attitude in
   general. I care for science, yet I am seeing science being used to determine
   public policy. And of course you can’t disagree or debate, they’re scientists,
   pure and wise. Yet if they’re wrong or they manipulate the data, draw the wrong
   conclusions, doesn’t matter. SCIENCE. A few centuries ago it was religion that
   was used to determine public policy. Only then they burned the heretics, today
   they call you “deniers” and “anti-science” for daring to disprove the orthodoxy.

   I
   have a huge problem with the corrupting and politicization of Science for
   specific ends. And it’s only one-sided, after all every year we see advances in
   neo-natal imaging that shows the unborn baby, yet that can’t be allowed in
   public debate?

   “But
   the debate is too important, lives are at stake!” OK, if you increase the
   stakes from just a small lake to an entire planet you better have the data to
   back it up. Second, there are many aspects of life that are “too important”,
   doesn’t mean you don’t discuss it reasonably. Science is not knee-jerk. Third,
   you don’t create public policy just because “lives are at stake” and we’re all
   in a panic. If that were true why didn’t we quarantine all the AIDS patients in
   the 80’s?

   “Mr.
   Savage, we’ve found out you have cancer. Since ‘lives are at stake’ we’re going
   to strap you to this gurney and pump you with chemo drugs… oh quit your
   belly-aching, you’re in denial… oh wait…You’re not ‘Randy Savage’? oh. oops.”

   We
   then get this attitude that if anyone questions, comments, complaints, queries,
   or outright doesn’t buy the snake-oil that’s being peddled, the conclusion is
   that “must be neo-Dark-Agers, anti-science troglodytes, pft.” Um, no, it’s
   called being a skeptic, it actually used to be normal in science.

   The
   manner and methodology that’s being used tells people that the only way to get
   the point across is for some scientists to cheat. Again, that’s the appearance,
   but that’s the appearance that they themselves are presenting, so they have no
   right to complain. We’re seeing with the firestorm in baseball for example how
   a nation feels about those who cheat, what makes the science field think that
   makes them exempt?

   If
   the scientists came forth with the Global Warming theories, that’s something to
   discuss. Yet when the methods are questioned we get Al Gore declaring “the
   debate is over”. Oh really? Well then we should stop funding the research,
   after all the answers have been found. We can use that money for AIDS research
   or the cure for cancer. Ridiculous? Yes, it is. What point since the Renaissance
   has anyone said “ok we have all the answers, so you can stop what you’re doing”?

   The
   answer is never the goal, it’s the constant asking of questions. When this is
   hijacked for personal and political gain people notice, people take offense,
   and people can no longer trust in that branch of Science. It’s not “hostility”,
   we’re paying attention to the corruption and how it’s being used to affect
   people’s lives.

   So
   I rail at the corruption, the hypocrisy, the waste. Use something else besides
   Science, leave the test-tubes for scientists, not Congress. As the left is so
   fond of saying, “keep you laws out of my womb”. Fine, keep your politics out of
   my science.

   Reply

4. Favorite part “There is a US Top Gear?”. Spot on – UK Top Gear is only Top Gear. We need to get Adam to drive the reasonably priced car!

   Reply

5. I hope the number of comments to this video isn’t indicative of how many watched it. That was fantastic! Veronica’s reaction to the mere mentioning of Mike Rowe was hilarious. I… may or may not would have had a similar reaction.

   Reply

6. I don’t feel like there’s a contradiction between science and religion…. that’s what bothers me… people don’t want to accept science on the basis of religion and as a devout Christian I don’t see anywhere where the two don’t mesh.

   Reply